[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On the ifwp list Joe Sims wrote, (emphasis mine)
>so I take it all the hullabaloo on this is a waste of time, and the
>acceptable approach to you would be to make it so the "large
>commercial interests" were the ones with "token"
representation? The fact
>is that there are many interests with legitimate roles here, and
>you agree or not, that includes all the groups that the Board asked
>constituencies, including non-commercial interests. The issue
>individual constituency in the DNSO is a legitimate one, but it
>questions about the relationship of that to the At Large
>the appropriateness of changing what was essentially the consensus of
>vast majority of the community on the composition of the DNSO.
>that there are some -- it seems obvious a realtively small number --
>community that would do it a different way should certainly not be
>to override the consensus structure, at least without
>community to comment. There was no opportunity for notice and
>before the Berlin meeting, but I am sure there will be before the
>meeting. If this is too slow for you, I'm sorry, but since you
were one of
>the major proponents of the extensive notice and comment procedures
>have, you will have to take the credit or blame, such as it is, for
>speed at which ICANN can operate.
First of all, thank you Joe, for at last joining this debate on
I must take issue with this notion of consensus, especially of the
In Singapore, when Chris Hall (Canada ccTLD)asked the assembled
"DNSO meeting" if anyone wanted to voice objections to the idea
of a constituency for Individual Domain name owners, nobody spoke
You were there Joe, and so was Esther. Tell me that that
isn't true. If I hadn't gone there, others could testify to that
Was it you who advised the Board to act otherwise?
Extraordinary. These are the people who could afford or were paid to come
to the physical meeting and who had their own interests to defend.
In Berlin it was the same. Only about a third of the assembly of people
who went there (certainly not to plead for the Individual DN owners)
raised their hands against such a DNSO constituency, when Jim Higgins
called for a show of hands. (Esther's estimate)
When I looked, these were largely the Intellectual property lawyers and
some (certainly not all) CORE members.
You are (or the interim Board is) not taking into account the community
that has participated in these debates on line. Comments have been
sent to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org. How many
individual Domain name owners know of this process?
You have to build a democracy in order to measure consensus.
"Trust us" just doesn't cut it.
P.S. When you have the time, pray tell what a "consensus
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners